You are not logged in.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 7154839]US scientists designing new generation of nukes
*Do you think it's ethical of scientists to lend a hand in the creation of such weapons? Is it ethical of them to assist in the destruction of other human beings?
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Like button can go here
It depends on why they're doing it and for whom. Building a better bomb for a reasonably benevolent power with a record of liberating oppressed people and smashing tyranny is one thing. Building one for a super-villain or terrorist who intends to blow up a major city for fun and profit is quite another.
Much of the nuclear weapons research at present focuses on two things, making weapons less prone to degradation to reduce the need for regular testing, and making bombs with smaller yields.
So one can look at it two ways, on the one hand a small nuke isn't the mass-slaughter city-killing weapon that a multi-megaton thermonuclear weapon is. On the other hand, a small nuke is more likely to be used. We aren't going to use a 5 megaton bomb on any military target we're likely to hit, but a .5 kiloton bomb is an entirely different story.
So what's it going to be used for is the real question, or rather what do those building it believe it will be used for is the real morality question. It's not as though no one will be killed if they don't build it, merely a question of who and when.
Perhaps if you can choose not to work on the bomb it is moral to build it. Those who force you to build it are likely those who shouldn't have it.
Put another way, a bomb is a gun is a knife is a rock is a fist. It's not so much a question of "what" as "who".
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Like button can go here
Perhaps if you can choose not to work on the bomb it is moral to build it. Those who force you to build it are likely those who shouldn't have it.
*Hmmmm, well that sort of fits in with what I was going to say next. Ayn Rand believed it was morally objectionable and unethical for scientists to lend a hand in any respect towards warfare. Unfortunately I can't recall which essay this opinion was in, nor in what book it was reproduced.
Anyway, it was odd to me that she seemed to single out scientists in totalitarian regimes. Of course, my memory may be faulty on that point...but I generally have a very good memory. In a totalitarian regime, one could refuse -- and the entire family gets massacred or thrown into prison. So this seems to fit (a bit at least) with your statment about those who would force others to build weapons shouldn't have it.
Rand didn't seem to answer her own objection in regards to free nations, though. But the original question is still valid, IMO.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Like button can go here